DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 21 August 2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority based on an WIPO application filed with the international bureau on 22 February 2022.
Response to Arguments
The specification objections are withdrawn.
The drawing objection has been withdrawn.
The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks on the merits have been considered but are not persuasive. As to the remarks about Sekya not teaching “setting an On-Duty of the switch based on an output current or output power output from the rectifier circuit “, examiner respectfully disagrees. Judging by applicant’s comments, it appears applicant meant to claim, “setting an on-duty of the switch directly related to an output current or output power”. The language in the prior sentence is significantly narrower than the present claim language. Note that claim 2 explicitly states that “changes the setting period so as to set any of an output voltage, an output current, and output power of the power conversion device at a target value.” Though the word duty is not explicitly mentioned in claim 2, duty is mentioned multiple times throughout his specification. For example, ¶30 states “controller 20 of the power conversion device may be modified to a device that performs the contents of control when predetermined conditions are satisfied and performs another control (for example, control for turning on/off the semiconductor switch S with a fixed duty ratio) when the predetermined conditions are not satisfied. Whether the predetermined conditions are satisfied or not is determined by, for example, an output voltage or an input voltage”. This is one example, though Figure 5 also shows the controller modifying the duty cycle from the standard 50% on time to when ZVS is achieved which again is based on the sensed values. Lastly, note that applicant chose the claim language “based on an output current or output power”. “Based on” is broad language and claim 2 explicitly states the power being fed back into the system to calculate frequency. Recall that the duty (d) and period (T) domain are related in the time domain (ton = duty * T = duty * 1/ Frequency). In short, there are too many interpretations in Sekya that the duty is being controlled based on the output power, and the courts have repeatedly told examiners to read claims broadly (MPEP 2111.01, MPEP 2173.01). As such, it appears the rejection should be sustained at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
For method claims, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed is considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated. (The claims have been condensed.)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekya (EP 3820035) in view of Telefus (US 9893627).
As to claim 11, Sekya teaches (see annotated figure below) a power conversion method for a power conversion device having a class-E power conversion circuit (10), the class-E power conversion circuit having a class-E inverter circuit and a rectifier circuit connected to the class-E inverter circuit and configured to rectify a high-frequency alternating current generated by the class-E inverter circuit to a direct current or a low-frequency AC voltage; the class-E inverter comprising, a switch for switching the current on/off, an input choke inductor connected to at least one end of the switch changes the setting period so as to set any of an output voltage, an output current, and output power of the power conversion device at a target value.”).
Though he teaches much of the claimed invention, he does not specifically teach the class-E inverter circuit comprises an AC voltage input unit into which an AC voltage is input, choke inductor connected to at least one end of the AC voltage input unit
PNG
media_image1.png
482
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Telefus teaches A power conversion (see annotated figure below) method for a power conversion device having a class-E power conversion circuit, wherein:the class-E power conversion circuit has a class-E inverter circuit and a rectifier circuit connected to the class-E inverter circuit and rectifying a high-frequency alternating current generated by the class-E inverter circuit to a direct current or a low-frequency AC voltage;the class-E inverter circuit comprises an AC voltage input unit into which an AC voltage is input, a switch for switching the current on/off, an input choke inductor connected to at least one end of the switch and the AC voltage input unit, and an LC resonance circuit connected to the rectifier circuit
PNG
media_image2.png
454
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use AC input as disclosed in Telefus in order to use utility power.
As to claim 12, Sekya in view of Telefus makes obvious comprising increasing the On-Duty as the output current or the output power is increased. Though not explicitly taught, it is known in the art (see MPEP 2144.03 US 20070210867 ¶38, US 20130293210 ¶31, US 10734842 claim 2).
As to claim 13, Sekya in view of Telefus teaches comprising setting the On- Duty based on a measured value of the output current or the output power (both pieces of art show voltage feedback, which is proportional to output power).
As to claim 14, Sekya in view of Telefus teaches comprising setting the On- Duty based on a command value of the output current or the output power (see claim 2).
As to claim 15, Sekya in view of Telefus teaches comprising setting the On- Duty based on a relationship between the output current or the output power, and whether the zero voltage switching is achievable (Sekya drives the error between the target value and measured value to a minimum value, and descirbes ZVS throughout most of his specification).
As to claim 16, Sekya in view of Telefus teaches setting the On- Duty based on an output voltage output from the rectifier circuit (see image above, both references have voltage feedback).
As to claim 17, Sekya in view of Telefus teaches setting the On- Duty based on a relationship between the output voltage, the output current or the output power, and whether the zero voltage switching is achievable (it relates to the target and measured output voltage, and ZVS is described extensively in Sekya).
As to claim 20, Sekya teaches (see image above) A power conversion device having a class-E power conversion circuit, wherein:the class-E power conversion circuit has a class-E inverter circuit and a rectifier circuit connected to the class-E inverter circuit and rectifying a high-frequency alternating current generated by the class-E inverter circuit to a direct current or a low-frequency AC voltage;the class-E inverter circuit comprises
Though he teaches much of the claimed invention, he does not specifically teach the class-E inverter circuit comprises an AC voltage input unit into which an AC voltage is input, choke inductor connected to at least one end of the AC voltage input unit
Telefus teaches A power conversion (see annotated figure above) method for a power conversion device having a class-E power conversion circuit, wherein:the class-E power conversion circuit has a class-E inverter circuit and a rectifier circuit connected to the class-E inverter circuit and rectifying a high-frequency alternating current generated by the class-E inverter circuit to a direct current or a low-frequency AC voltage;the class-E inverter circuit comprises an AC voltage input unit into which an AC voltage is input, a switch for switching the current on/off, an input choke inductor connected to at least one end of the switch and the AC voltage input unit, and an LC resonance circuit connected to the rectifier circuit
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use AC input as disclosed in Telefus in order to use utility power.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekya (EP 3820035) in view of Telefus (US 9893627) and Yuzurihara (US 20200153339).
As to claim 18, Sekya in view of Telefus does not teach detecting an AC voltage value input to the AC voltage input unit.
Yuzurihara teaches teach detecting an AC voltage value input to the AC voltage input unit (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use multiple amplifiers as disclosed in Yuzurihara in order to increase power.
As to claim 19, Sekya in view of Telefus and Yuzurihara teaches comprising setting the On- Duty based on a relationship between the AC voltage value, the output current or the output power, and whether the zero voltage switching can be established (Yuzurihara, Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular column, paragraph, and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1375. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM,Monday through Thursday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Crystal Hammond can be reached on 571-270-1682. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER M NOVAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2839
Prosecution Insights